High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-11-10Writ petitions disposed of with directions for ...

Romeena Jose v. State of Kerala and Local Land Monitoring Committee, Maradu

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 23620 of 2016 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions: petitioners to file applications in prescribed form for correction of Data Bank entries before Local Level Monitoring Committees; LLMCs to consider corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports and to rely on those reports for determinations; if corrections are allowed, petitioners are entitled to invoke Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to use the properties for other purposes, with building permits or numbers to be issued if eligible; such orders to be passed within one month from the date of a request, and petitioners to pursue fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act; decisions to be guided by Kerala precedents (Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector; Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma) and not to be constrained by Circular No. 46848/P1/2016.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for corrected Data Bank entries through prescribed forms, LLMCs to decide after KSRSEC reports; upon approval, venue to obtain KLUO permission (Clause 6) and issue building permits/numbers if eligible; orders to pass within specified time; authorities to consider fresh Land Tax assessments where applicable; precedents cited to guide implementation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Romeena Jose

Respondents

State of Kerala
Local Land Monitoring Committee, Maradu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• PeeYus A. Kottam

Counsels for Respondents

• Ravi Krishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ petitions concerns the data entries in the Data Bank created under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner, Romeena Jose, and others allege that several properties were originally paddy lands, converted to garden lands long before the Act’s introduction, yet remain listed in the Data Bank, restricting their ability to use or develop the properties, including constructing buildings and obtaining building permits or numbers. They seek correction of the Data Bank entries and related entries in revenue records, arguing that pre-conversion lands should not be rendered ineligible for other legitimate uses. The State and the Local Level Monitoring Committees contend that corrections must follow prescribed forms and statutory processes, and that action should be grounded in proper verification, including KSRSEC reports. The Court notes the principle that if conversion occurred prior to the Act, the Act may not apply to such properties (citing Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep) and emphasizes the LLMC’s power to correct mistakes. It directs the petitioners to file in the prescribed form, directs LLMCs to consider corrections after obtaining KSRSEC reports, and, if corrections are allowed, enables permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (Clause 6) to use the lands for other purposes, subject to due approvals and fresh assessments under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The judgment also cites related precedents and directs timely action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization OrderClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the properties were originally paddy lands and later converted to garden lands prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They allege that the Data Bank includes these entries, restricting use for other purposes, including construction, and affecting building permits and numbering. They seek correction of Data Bank entries and revenue-record entries and request building permits/ numbers if allowed. They argue that since conversion occurred before enactment, the Act should not apply to their lands, and Local Level Monitoring Committees have power to correct entries after appropriate processes. If corrections are allowed, they seek permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) to use the lands for other purposes after necessary approvals, including a fresh assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Act’s applicability depends on status at the time of conversion; LLMCs must follow prescribed forms and obtain relevant reports (KSRSEC) before deciding corrections. While pre-conversion lands may fall outside the Act’s reach, the LLMCs must verify status and grant permissions only after due process, including compliance with KLUO Clause 6; building-permit issuance and building-numbering depend on compliance with statutory procedures and relevant orders; administrators must ensure that Data Bank entries reflect legitimate uses while protecting Paddy Land and wetlands.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep	2015(1) KLT 984	Positive	Cited to support that pre-conversion lands may fall outside the Act’s applicability; aids petitioners' position.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015(3) KLT 182	Positive	Cited regarding permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order; supports the remedy invoked by petitioners.
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma	2015(2) KLT 516	Positive	Cited for time-bound consideration principles under statutory processes; informs the timeline for actions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Romeena Jose v. State of Kerala and Local Land Monitoring Committee, Maradu and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/19TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 23620 of 2016 (B)** **----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **ROMEENA JOSE, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH J.VAYALAT, RESIDING AT EDAKKATTUKUDY HOUSE, THANGALAM KARA, TRIKKARIYOOR,TRIKKARIYOOUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.** **BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM** **RESPONDENT(S) : ----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. LOCAL LAND MONITORING COMMITTEE, MARADU, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MARADU - 682 040.** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 36689 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **WP(C).No. 23620 of 2016 (B)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/06/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK PERTAINING TO PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE R2(A): A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LLMC. ANNEXURE R2(B): COPIES OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY DURING AND PRIOR OF 2008 (2 IN NUMBERS).** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **Msd.** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.P.(c) Nos.23620, 36689, 39059 & 40833 of 2016 and W.P.(C) Nos.263, 3871, 4377, 6139, 6375, 7167, 8880, 9560, 10191, 10526, 11538, 11995, 13386, 13576, 13725, 13726, 13777, 13793, 14236, 17276, 18184 & 25373 of 2017 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** The case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the properties owned by them as referred to in the writ petitions were originally paddy lands, but converted as garden lands several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioners that though the properties were converted as garden lands prior to the introduction of the Act, the properties are included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act and as such, they are unable to make use the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings. It is alleged in W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases **-2-** some of the writ petitions that the building permits applied for by the petitioners therein are not being considered for the aforesaid reason. In some other writ petitions, it is alleged that the buildings constructed by the petitioners therein are not being numbered on account of the said reason. According to the petitioners, since the properties were converted prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the Data Bank. In most of the cases, petitioners have preferred applications before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries relating to their properties in the Data Bank and the applications preferred by the petitioners for the said purpose are part of the records. The petitioners seek directions in these writ petitions to the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned to correct the entires in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. They also seek orders for correction of the entry relating to their properties in the revenue records. Some of the petitioners, among others, W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** seek directions to the local authorities concerned to grant building permits applied for by them and some others seek directions to the local authorities concerned to assign numbers to the buildings constructed by them on the strength of the building permits issued to them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. If the properties of the petitioners are converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer** v. **Jalaja Dileep** (2015(1) KLT 984). But, the question whether the properties are converted prior to the Act as claimed by the petitioners is a matter to be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees at the first instance. It is all the more so since the Local Level Monitoring Committees are empowered to correct the mistake, if any, in the Data Bank. True, if the provisions of the Act would not apply to the properties of the petitioners, ## W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** they are entitled to make use of the properties for other purposes including construction of buildings, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order [See **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** v. **Sub Collector** (2015(3) KLT 182)]. 4. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the applications preferred by some of the petitioners for correction of the entries in the Data Bank as referred to in the writ petition are not in the prescribed form. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer applications in the prescribed form, wherever such applications are not filed, before the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned for correction of the entries in the Data Bank in relation to their properties. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications in the prescribed form as directed above along with copies of the judgment and the writ petition in cases where applications in the W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases **-5-** prescribed form have not been preferred, the same shall be considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committees concerned, after obtaining reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) as to the position of the properties at the time of commencement of the Act. The petitioners shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSRSEC for issuing their report if directed so by the Conveners of the Local Level Monitoring Committees. Needless to say that in cases where reports have already been called for from the KSRSEC at the expense of the petitioners pursuant to interim orders passed in the writ petitions, orders shall be passed on the strength of the said reports. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in cases where applications in the prescribed form have already been filed, and within three months from the date of receipt of the applications, in other cases. If the requests made by the petitioners are allowed, they are W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases **-6-** entitled to prefer applications invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order before the competent authority viz, the District Collector/the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to make use of the properties for other purposes, in cases where applications have not been filed by the petitioners for the said purpose and in that event, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order shall pass orders on those applications within one month from the date of production of the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, wherever applicable, along with a copy of the writ petition, in the light of the decision of this Court in **Puthan Purakkal Joseph** _(supra),_ untrammelled by Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Government. If the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, the petitioners shall be issued building permits or assigned building numbers, as the case may be, if they are otherwise W.P. (C) No.23620 of 2016 & con. cases ## **-7-** entitled for the same, by the local authorities concerned. Needless to say that if the requests of the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order are granted, they will also be entitled to move the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if such requests are made by the petitioners, the same shall also be considered by the said authorities, in the light of **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat** v. **Mariumma** (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month from the date of their respective requests. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** bng